"Ruby on Rails for ___" is getting really old. Here's why:
Nothing will compete with Ruby on Rails for the foreseeable future. That's not to say these attempts are meaningless, but trying to compare something to Ruby's ecosystem just isn't fair.
Ruby's ecosystem caught fire in thanks to Rails, and in thanks to how we were writing web apps in the mid-late 2000s. Web frameworks were just starting to really gain adoption by hobbyists. On top of that, people were sick of writing PHP.
Remember the days of uploading a bunch of files to some server via FTP? When shared hosting powered your forums for a little while? When 100gb bandwidth was a ton? I do.
Any sort of meaningful alternative to those pains was attractive. People flocked. And Ruby's ecosystem thrived.
Ruby on Rails is much more than a handful of libraries (ActiveRecord, ActiveController, etc.) coupled in an MVC pattern to make life easier. If Rails was just that without the entirety of the Ruby ecosystem, my point would be moot. But it's not. And it's a beautiful world to live in.
I guess my point is that saying something competes with Ruby on Rails is laughable. "A new MVC framework, for those who are familiar with Rails's conventions" is better. But all this Ruby on Rails for Y... It's so near-sighted.
I do not think Lucky is Ruby on Rails for Crystal. There are new patterns for just about everything. Routing is different, querying is different, views are very different.
It is Rails-like in the sense that it is aimed at productivity and developer happiness and that it aims to have most of what you need in one package.
Of course Ruby has a better ecosystem, this is mentioned in the article. Lucky (and Crystal) have a long way to go, but things are progressing rather quickly
Nothing will compete with Ruby on Rails for the foreseeable future. That's not to say these attempts are meaningless, but trying to compare something to Ruby's ecosystem just isn't fair.
Ruby's ecosystem caught fire in thanks to Rails, and in thanks to how we were writing web apps in the mid-late 2000s. Web frameworks were just starting to really gain adoption by hobbyists. On top of that, people were sick of writing PHP.
Remember the days of uploading a bunch of files to some server via FTP? When shared hosting powered your forums for a little while? When 100gb bandwidth was a ton? I do.
Any sort of meaningful alternative to those pains was attractive. People flocked. And Ruby's ecosystem thrived.
Ruby on Rails is much more than a handful of libraries (ActiveRecord, ActiveController, etc.) coupled in an MVC pattern to make life easier. If Rails was just that without the entirety of the Ruby ecosystem, my point would be moot. But it's not. And it's a beautiful world to live in.
I guess my point is that saying something competes with Ruby on Rails is laughable. "A new MVC framework, for those who are familiar with Rails's conventions" is better. But all this Ruby on Rails for Y... It's so near-sighted.